CA Supreme Court removes Taxpayer Protection Act from ballot
Gov. Gavin Newsom and others challenged the measure in court citing it would upend the funding of state and local governments; supporters said it would allow taxpayers to vote on all tax increases
STATE — Proponents of a controversial ballot measure aimed at curbing tax increases from the state are enraged after the California Supreme Court pulled the measure from the ballot.
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) qualified for the November election and aimed to curb state, county and local governments’ ability to increase taxes without public approval, according to the measure. The measure would require a change in state law resulting in a new or higher tax it must be approved by two-thirds of each house in the legislature and approved by a majority vote of the people. It also barred no new ad valorem taxes on real property, sales or transaction taxes of real property.
The measure was appealed to the state Supreme Court by Gov. Gavin Newsom and former Senate President Pro Tem John Burton to bar the Secretary of State from placing the initiative on the ballot.
“[t]he TPA would shift so much authority, in such a significant manner, that it would substantially alter our framework of government …[accomplishing] such far-reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision” of the constitution,” the court wrote. “Whereas a restriction on the ability of local governments to raise revenue might previously have been offset by the power of the state to raise revenue, the TPA burdens both simultaneously.”
The initiative qualified for the ballot in February 2023 with more than 1.4 million signatures, according to reports. It’s the first ballot measure to be struck down since 1999, although others were removed as those proponents did not engage in a legal defense, according to CalMatters.
Regardless, Republican leaders, business groups and residents slammed the court’s decision on Thursday. Many railed against the court for stripping the electorate of its ability to vote on how taxes should be assessed.
“I’m disgusted. The court has failed in its duty to the people of California and our democratic system and instead simply caved to pressure from the governor and legislative Democrats,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-San Diego). “The state’s highest court is supposed to be a nonpartisan, independent branch of government.
Democrats, and the court, though, said the if the TPA was approved it would radically shift the dynamics of funding government and public agencies. The shift, they said, would be an impediment on operations, add constraints to the legislature’s ability to delegate to other agencies and interfere with local fee setting and collection.
“The Governor (sic) believes the initiative process is a sacred part of our democracy, but as the Court’s decision affirmed today, that process does not allow for an illegal constitutional revision,” a spokesperson for Newsom said in a statement.
In addition to Newsom’s opposition to the act, labor unions also celebrated the court’s decision. The measure would have increased the margin to pass voter-initiated special tax at local levels from a simple majority to two-thirds. It also restricted how officials can calculate the cost of fees funding public services and programs and reclassify some of those as taxes.
In San Diego County, there are many tax increases on, or heading to, the ballot in November. Escondido is pushing for a 1-cent sales tax through a citizen’s initiative, while the cities of Encinitas, Oceanside and San Marcos are putting forward their own tax measures.
Also, a coalition of labor unions, environmental groups and one contractor for the San Diego Association of Governments qualified a half-cent sales tax increase to help fund SANDAG’s ambitious regional transportation plan.
“The Taxpayer Deception Act was a flagrant attempt by a few extremely wealthy real estate developers to undermine our entire democratic system and our voice as voters and devastate the vital services Californians rely on — all to avoid paying their fair share,” David Huerta, president of SEIU California and SEIU United Service Workers West, said in a statement. “Today’s (Thursday’s) ruling is a strong warning to corporate interests that even those with the fattest pocketbooks will be held accountable to follow our laws.”
“Clearly, the state Supreme Court has now sent a signal that they are part of the progressive agenda in California, that we are a one-party state in California and there is no independent judiciary in California anymore,” Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, said at a press conference. CalMatters reported he accused Newsom and the Legislature of supporting democracy “only on their terms, when they think it’s in their best interest.”
As for the court, it also found several other issues with the ballot measure. Those include:
After reviewing the petition and the opposition filed by Proponent, we determined that Petitioners had made a prima facie showing that the TPA would amount to an invalid constitutional revision based on its far-reaching changes to existing processes by which revenue measures are enacted and maintained at the state and local levels.
Those provisions would void any state or local “tax or exempt charge” adopted after January 1, 2022, and prior to the TPA’s effective date if it was “not adopted in compliance with” the newly proposed requirements unless it is reenacted with voter approval within one year of the TPA’s effective date.
The TPA, if enacted, would thus require the state and localities to start preparing to administer special elections if they wish to avoid nullification of taxes or charges imposed after January 1, 2022.
“(The changes) are within the electorate’s prerogative to enact, but because those changes would substantially alter our basic plan of government, the proposal cannot be enacted by initiative,” Justice Goodwin Liu wrote. “It is instead governed by the procedures for revising our Constitution.”
Liu said proposed revisions must be submitted to voters by a supermajority of the legislature or a constitutional convention.
So much for ‘power by the people’; really matters how you vote. 🗳️